Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

The rhetorical limitations of the #FridaysForFuture movement

The students striking for action on climate change admirably display civic engagement on a pressing issue. Nevertheless, their movement’s message focuses far too heavily on the need to ‘listen to science’, which is at most a point of departure for answering the ethical and political questions central to climate action.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type



Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout


  1. Durkheim, É. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (Oxford Univ. Press, 1912).

  2. Beck, U. World Risk Society (Polity, 1999).

  3. Giddens, A. The Consequences of Modernity (Polity, 2012).

  4. Sarewitz, D. Environ. Sci. Pol. 7, 385–403 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Howarth, R. & Ingraffea, A. Nature 477, 271–273 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Jasanoff, S. & Simmet, H. Soc. Studies Sci. 47, 751–770 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. IPCC. Special Report: Global warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2018).

  8. Russell, B. A History of Western Philosophy (Simon & Schuster, 1959).

  9. Hansson, S. O. in Risk: Philosophical Perspectives (ed. Lewens, T.) 31–45 (Routledge, 2007).

  10. Hansson, S. O. in Handbook of Safety Principles (eds Moller, N. et al) 258–283 (Wiley, 2017).

  11. Robinson, M. & Shine, T. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 564–569 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cripps., E. Polit. Philos. Econ. 16, 308–325 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kanbur, R. & Shue, H. (eds) Climate Justice: Integrating Economics and Philosophy (Oxford Univ. Press, 2018).

  14. Shi, L. et al. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 131–137 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Schlosberg, D. & Collins, L. B. WIRES Clim. Change 5, 359–374 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hale, T. Glob. Environ. Polit. 16, 12–22 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Falkner, R. Int. Aff. 92, 1107–1125 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hermwille, L., Obergassel, W., Ott, H. & Beuermann, C. Clim. Pol. 17, 150–170 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Laclau, E. On Populist Reason (Verso, 2005).

  20. Fraune, C. & Knodt, M. Energ. Res. Soc. Sci. 43, 1–7 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Rosenthal, S. & Maibach, E. Global Chall. 1, 1600008 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Roberts, J. T. & Parks, B. A Climate of Injustice: Global Inequality, North-South Politics, and Climate Policy (MIT Press, 2006).

  23. Ciplet, D., Roberts, J. T. & Khan, M. R. Power in a warming world: The new global politics of climate change and the remaking of environmental inequality (MIT Press, 2015).

  24. Warren, M. Nature 567, 291–292 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Darrick Evensen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Evensen, D. The rhetorical limitations of the #FridaysForFuture movement. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 428–430 (2019).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing